Charges for goods not delivered as agreed falls under the protection of the Fair Credit Billing Act. If you made a good faith attempt to resolve with the merchant (which you did) you should use your credit card to charge back the amount (some let you request a partial charge back, but if not you can request a full one and explain in the extra info that you want a partial one).
This might not seem worth it for $3, but if they get a lot of these the credit cards/banks might start giving them a hard time about it, so I think it's worth the minor hassle (everything can be done via the credit card app usually)
I once did a chargeback of almost $5k to PayPal when someone scammed me (and PayPal sided with scammer). I still have my account, though I don't use it for anything I'd actually need protection on now.
On the other hand I did get banned from an online local selling site (rhymes with Canary) for charging back a small purchase where the wrong thing was delivered and their system for reporting it was broken and they refused to refund. I even tried having a roommate create an account (same address) and they banned that when they made a purchase.
> Those don’t happen just willy nilly - it means your credit card reviewed your dispute and you won
Here's how that review works at the online seller of downloadable software accompanied by an online service that I do some work for.
1. A customer asks for a chargeback.
2. Their card company notifies us and asks for proof the charge is legitimate (e.g. made by the customer and what they ordered was delivered). For proof the charge was made by the customer the card company wants us to fax them a copy of the receipt that the customer signed, which of course does not exist. We also can't really prove delivery--I've yet to see a credit card company that will accept download logs showing that someone later downloaded the software from the same IP address that the order was placed from. Since we can't really dispute the chargeback it is approved.
Even when it should be obvious from the credit card company's own records that the charge is legit they want to see that signed receipt. E.g., if the customer bought a monthly subscription 2 years ago and we've been successfully charging them every month since then, and now they suddenly ask for a chargeback on their most recent charge claiming they don't recognize the charge and have never heard of is or bought any service from us the credit card company doesn't consider all those past undisputed charges as relevant.
That's not quite willy nilly but it is leaning that way for things that are entirely online.
They should obviously not be able to do that, I hope you now will stop relying on such services that put you utterly at their mercy. I hope you also tell everyone you know to not fall in the same trap
Yeah bro but what are you supposed to do? We live in a moment in time where you can’t take a step without stepping in shit
I don’t want to turn streaming content into a personal hobby and spend time/money trying to set up home streaming services just like I don’t want to buy physical media
Ditto for phone/apps - the play store is just as bad and I have no interest in running a jailbroken iPhone as that comes with its own set of headaches
Why would you want to continue using a service that is ripping you off? If you're at the point where your only recourse is to charge back, that's kind of a bridge burning moment.
> Why would you want to continue using a service that is ripping you off?
For the same reason that I'm going to continue using Uber despite them ripping other people off, as described in this very thread. People systematically overweight their own negative experiences and underweight those of others; I believe that every single negative story about Lyft and Uber I've read in this thread is likely to be true. In other words, they do sometimes rip people off. On the other hand, am I likely enough to be ripped off the next time I use Uber that it doesn't make sense to use it? (And do what instead, walk?) No. It's unfortunate, and I support social solutions to the problem like better regulation of businesses, but if I personally dropped every company I think sometimes rips people off, I would do business with no one ever.
I have many times walked home when I didn’t trust the bus timetable or the taxi equivalent. Always expected to get mugged but it hasn’t happened yet. I guess people often think someone walking is someone to not be messed with. Very place dependent obviously
Right, I didn't mean to imply an across the board policy of always taking Uber, never walking, wherever you go. But there are a ton of situations in the United States where walking + public transportation can't take you where you need to go at all, even putting aside safety.
I took Google to a tribunal (think Australian equivalent of small claims) a few years ago, over a defective Pixel they refused to repair 2 years and 1 month after purchase.
Under Australian Consumer Law, I wanted to make the case that a premium phone should last more than 2 years.
Google’s representatives initially sent letters arguing that the license agreement forces me to arbitrate, to which I responded by adding another claim that binding arbitration is an unfair contract provision under the same ACL and should be declared void.
A couple days before the case, I received an offer to settle for a brand new phone and my filing fees, to which I accepted.
No chargebacks, no ban, just the legal system working as it should while being accessible to everyday folks.
That's a fantastic outcome, and honestly, a bit of a unicorn from my perspective here in the US. Your story about the Australian Consumer Law having actual teeth is a breath of fresh air. Here in the US, it feels like we're playing a whole different ball game, and the house (of Google) always wins.
A buddy of mine, let's call him "Dave," had a strikingly similar issue with a Pixel phone a couple of years back. His device started bootlooping out of the blue about 18 months after he bought it. Not exactly what you'd call a "premium" experience. He went through the standard support rigmarole, which I'm sure you're familiar with – the endless chat bots, the canned email responses, the escalations to senior support agents who just read from the same script. The final word from on high was, "Sorry, you're out of the one-year warranty. We can't help you."
Dave, being the stubborn engineer type, decided he wasn't going to take that lying down. He'd read about people having success in small claims court and thought, "How hard can it be?" He did his homework, found the correct legal entity for Google in his state, and filed the paperwork. The filing fee wasn't outrageous, something like $75. He wasn't asking for the moon, just the cost of a replacement phone and the filing fee.
This is where the story takes a decidedly American turn. A few weeks after filing, he didn't get a settlement offer. Instead, he got a thick envelope from a fancy law firm. It was a motion to compel arbitration. Buried deep in the terms of service that we all click "agree" to without reading, there was, of course, a binding arbitration clause. And not just any arbitration, but one that would be conducted by an arbitrator of Google's choosing, in a location convenient for them (Northern California, naturally), and he'd have to split the cost of the arbitrator, which can run into thousands of dollars.
So, his $75 gamble to get a new phone suddenly had the potential to turn into a multi-thousand-dollar boondoggle. The letter from the lawyers was polite, but the message was clear: "drop this, or we'll bury you in legal fees." They weren't just trying to avoid paying for a faulty phone; they were making an example of him.
Dave folded. He couldn't afford to take the risk. So, not only did he not get his phone replaced, but he was also out the filing fee and a good chunk of his time and energy. He ended up just buying an iPhone out of spite.
This is why arbitration on consumers should be illegal - aka, arbitration should only be legal when both entities are approximately similar in power/capability.
The whole reason for existence of courts is to ensure that parties with unequal power can be fairly treated. Arbitration seems to remove that via a loop hole.
IMO it's attitudes like this that allow companies to continue ripping us all off for small amounts here and small amounts there. They know it's a small amount and most people won't push back, so they keep getting away with it. I suppose the only thing that stops me from hitting the nuclear button every time this happens is that there are a limited number of companies offering many categories of services, and I'd eventually have to charge back each of them and lose access to an entire industry composed entirely of shitty companies.
It would be much better if companies were inclined to amicably settle small dollar disputes rather than the default which seems to be to stonewall, and then ban when the customer uses the only tool they have to push back.
> IMO it's attitudes like this that allow companies to continue ripping us all off for small amounts here and small amounts there
I'm not asking for inaction, but for a response proportionate to the injury. If you spend hundreds or thousands of dollars for a service and they make what may be a $3 mistake, is it worth it to you to burn the service immediately?
The point is a bad one that should be missed. $3 isn't negligible. It isn't usually [0] worth spending $4 to recover, but it is nonetheless money. People can't just arbitrarily charge each other $3 for nothing.
[0] Game theory says sometimes it makes sense to be unreasonable.
It's not arbitrary. It's part of an ongoing relationship that is worth significantly more. That $3 came out of the trust they have with the company. But even though they're wary now, they still have some trust and want to use the service in the future.
Some random guy asking for $3 is a wildly different situation.
It's not about the $3, it's about the relationship.
A close analogy would be Netflix going up $2. If you keep paying that, it doesn't mean you think the money is negligible, and it doesn't mean you would give that money to someone else. And this holds whether Netflix got consent before the increase or scammed you out of it or anything in between; those things affect the decision but they don't change the fundamental nature of it.
The company is valuing the relationship at <$3. In practice there can be no "relationship" with an entity that wilfully steals $3; even in the commercial sense. It is strictly transactional and they're signalling that on any transaction they're willing to cheat you.
You can keep using them if you want. But history has no meaning when dealing with that sort of company.
Many, Many millions have been made on pennies pulled from consumers daily.
$3 in a personal vacuum is one thing (and still adds up if you consider each service that could do this)
$3 across 20% of users, lets say, globally, daily. Adds up.
Consumers have the ability to also contribute to and define how engagements with businesses look. If the government won't help us, we have to continue on our own.
TMobile - 2014
The FTC sued Tmobile alleging it knowingly kept 30–40% of fraudulent charges
Tmobile settled for $90 million: at least $67.5M refunded to consumers, $18M to states/AGs, and $4.5M to the FCC
AT&T: $105 million for unauthorized premium SMS billing
Dodd‑Frank’s Durbin Amendment (2010): Congress required the Federal Reserve to cap debit‑card swipe (interchange) fees—typically a few cents—forcing banks to drop excessive micropayments to retailers. Because previously they were. And it was resulting in millions
State Attorneys General vs. Marriott (2021–2022)
Hidden “resort fees” tacked onto hotel bills—$10–$35 per night. The Pennsylvania AG and coalition sued; Marriott settled and began disclosing mandatory fees upfront
Walmart: $45 million settlement no admission of guilt, but Walmart agreed to compensate shoppers who bought specified items from October 19, 2018, to January 19, 2024 for a max of $500 even though they knew they were overcharging customers
WholeFoods had a similar case, purposefully misweighing items
The list goes on and on.
The question on the table is: why pursue $3 for not getting the thing you ordered. Is it fair? Does it matter?
Based on continuous corporate fraud, I would say not calling it out will make it worse.
Ironically, taking them to small claims court is likely more effective if you want to send a message without getting banned. It will get more attention, consume more valuable resources on their side (and yours of course), and likely not get you banned unlike the chargeback process where you'd just get auto-mindlessly sorted into the "fraud" bucket.
> you should use your credit card to charge back the amount
Don't you end up getting a new credit card number and have to deal with updating your details everywhere after doing this?
> This might not seem worth it for $3
It seems it's also painful and seemingly not worth it by design. Whenever they can make the process so painful that going through it essentially pays way less than your wage they can get away with it 99% of the time.
I’ve never had to get a new card/number after a chargeback.
You just get the charge removed or some amount deducted if it’s approved. You aren’t requesting a new card.
edit: This was for a purchase I made but didn’t receive exactly what I paid for. Now for fraudulent charges I didn’t make, yes they send a new card. I’m in the US, maybe it’s different elsewhere.
Once during the first year of the covid pandemic, I requested a couple meals for me and my wife through the Uber eats for lunch, my wife was accompanying in the hospital my mother-in-law on Sunday, then after suddenly the place informed the meals was delivered, but I didn't received anything. After I tried to discuss with Uber eats, I had appealled for the credit card, they full refund me.
> That's not the case. The STF never accuses, they only judge. Accusations come from other institutions. The Supreme Court then orders investigations and act as judges.
That's not true for some of the cases referred here though. For matters that the court deems related to attacks on the Supreme Court or democracy, Moraes can act essentially as both prosecutor and judge.
I'm not arguing if this is good or bad. Some people argue this is good, some that it is bad, but it is a fact.
Not doubting you, I could certainly have missed something. Do you have references to which cases those are?
I ask because I haven’t heard of it. I have seen cases where arrests have been ordered pending investigation, but that’s a completely different matter.
In opposition to the other comments, I have worn glasses since an early age and my vision got progressively worse even after wearing glasses. I know many people in a similar situation. As far as I know that claim is not supported at all
Same here. And my ophthalmologist explained to me that the moment you start wearing glasses, your eyes stop making an effort to correct the blur (because the glasses are doing that for them) so the muscles involved in correcting vision become weaker overtime. According to him, the best course of action once myopia begins is to not wear glasses and try to correct it with other techniques.
It's interesting how we scientifically know that sarcopenia occurs after age 50-60 or so, but we assume that somehow the eye-related muscles get weaker rapidly at a very young age itself.
Mainly stopping whatever is worsening myopia (pauses from screens and looking at something far away, more daylight) and also incorporating orthoptic rehabilitation.
>I have never heard anyone claim that glasses prevent the progression of myopia.
The article seems to claim that:
>Fortunately, just a few minutes a day with glasses or contact lenses that correct for blur stops the progression of myopia, which is why early vision testing and vision correction are important to limit the development of myopia. Eye checks for children are mandatory in some countries, such as the U.K. and now China, as well as most U.S. states.
I have fairly mild nearsightedness and can corroborate, I've been wearing glasses for about 13 years or so and my sight has very slowly but certainly degraded in spite.
Corrective lenses definitely slow the degradation and improve daily quality of life, but unfortunately the rate of degradation does not reach zero.
> Corrective lenses definitely slow the degradation
And how do we know that? I mean, that an eye doctor would rather prescribe glasses than not, it's not surprising. The fact that they'd back up their choice by some "scientific" explanation, is only natural.
Let me offer the opposing view in the form of an example:
I have been diagnosed with mild miopia (-0.5), and prescribed glasses. I did wear the glasses for a few months but at some point I lost them, and didn't go back for a replacement. Now about 20 years later, I have never again wear glasses or any other correction and I don't need them (I can read the small leters on the vision tests. I would not say that my vision is 100%, but I never need glasses to see the things in the distance). If anything, my vision improved without wearing correction!
Because my sight is getting slowly but progressively worse each time I go in for eye exams to check if my glasses are still sufficient, but not as quickly as when I first had to get glasses in the first place.
Yeah it sounded like 3-3 gridlock until someone flipped, either it was Sam/Greg/Ilya against Adam/Helen/Tasha or it was Sam/Greg/Adam against Ilya/Helen/Tasha.
then the argument that altman would be able to easily stuff the board doesnt hold -- he didnt even have majority.
either you claim
(1) that there was a risk of altman having majority and stuffing the board and hence concede that majority allows stuffing the board, in which case you concede the actual majority which was anti-altman could have done that
or (2) you concede that having majority is not enough to stuff the board, in which case we were far from any risk of altman doing so, given that he did not even have a majority of the board
---
edit because i cant seem to reply further down thread: i read the article. my point is precisely that the board had majority. that is how they got to fire altman in the first place. given they had majority they had the chance to stuff the board in their own favor, as per the argument above.
You should read the article, because it’s clearly stated how Altman could get a majority. For your other concern, a simple vote change (like Ilya’s) can explain it.
> Specifically my guess (and I'm no expert) is a plasma wakefield accelerator feeding a free electron laser to get tunable wavelength EUV light far cheaper and simpler than what they've got now
Don't you think they'll also be using a retro encabulator, with the modial interaction of magneto-reluctance and capacitive directance being used to generate the EUV light?
I honestly can not tell if this is a serious question or a joke throwing around physics techno babble... Maybe this is how business people feel when we try to explain why some data somewhere is out of sync because of system problems.
I've just realized I really need to see this video re-shot next to a Shiny-Looking Thing at an ASML facility, preferably one with glowy lights emanating out of it somewhere.
(I've also just realized at least 10 companies have probably re-shot this internally with their own equipment. Argh.)
That is not true at all. I have been taking finasteride for years, since I noticed a little recession around my temples and a small loss of density around the front. I noticed it because I know my hair well.
The only other people that might actually be able to tell it are my parents. Except for that, every other person to whom I mention I use finasteride and minoxidil says something of the sort: "wtf, you have a full, dense head of hair, why would you take anything?".
This might not seem worth it for $3, but if they get a lot of these the credit cards/banks might start giving them a hard time about it, so I think it's worth the minor hassle (everything can be done via the credit card app usually)